They don't read the Bible. If anyone read the Bible they would become a Christian by the end of it. They are also ignorant of history because if they knew history they would see the veracity of the word of God. Every where Archeology makes a new find the Bible is vindicated. Scientifically and Historically the Bible is true much to their displeasure so that's why they'd rather live in lala land.

They don't read the Bible. If anyone read the Bible they would become a Christian by the end of it. They are also ignorant of history because if they knew history they would see the veracity of the word of God. Every where Archeology makes a new find the Bible is vindicated. Scientifically and Historically the Bible is true much to their displeasure so that's why they'd rather live in lala land.

That is not true. I know of an atheist on youtube who was reading through the Bible. He was not being led by the Holy Spirit, and he was reading from the perspective that it was fairy tales and fables. He would go on youtube and talk trash about people being killed in the old testament etc, not really seeking to understand it but to deny it. If you come to understand the reliability and the history behind the Bible, then it can take upon a while new meaning, but the Holy Spirit must guide you to knowledge of the truth.

That is not true. I know of an atheist on youtube who was reading through the Bible. He was not being led by the Holy Spirit, and he was reading from the perspective that it was fairy tales and fables. He would go on youtube and talk trash about people being killed in the old testament etc, not really seeking to understand it but to deny it. If you come to understand the reliability and the history behind the Bible, then it can take upon a while new meaning, but the Holy Spirit must guide you to knowledge of the truth.

You are right. Most don't and the few that do they do it to mock. The Bible was the only testimony of history before archeology began to find out that the stories in it were true.

I think it's hit or miss. Some read it, some don't. I think many atheists think, it's too old to be considered reliable, it's all fables, etc. I wish I could get some atheist/agnostic honest feedback on this. I'm very curious to their answers.

We 'choose' to put our faith in the power of God and not the wisdom of man. See first Cor. 2:5;

also reasoning with probverbs 3:5 and the idea that you can't 'science' your way to God.But everyone has a general revelation of God... a creation is evidence for a creator, a building is evidence for a builder, it is

I was short on time, if God is God wouldn't He have the power to sustain His Word.... We answer Yes

Here is an website on the types of revelationtheologywebsite.comSystematic Theology Study Helps: Bibliology.

Let's take one step at a time. As a Christian, I agree that the universe existing is evidence for a Creator God. But, you have not answered my question. Why is the Bible true? Simply believing does not make something true. Rather we should believe it if it's true.

The reason I ask this is that I saw a Christian apologist, Dr. Turek, stand before several hundred college students (Christian) and ask why is the Bible true? He could not get an answer.

First – There are a multitude of reliable first-hand eyewitnesses to the life, ministry, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, continued ministry and ascension of Jesus.

Second – Jesus proves that the New Testament is true and reliable.

Third – Jesus referred to the Old Testament as true and reliable by referencing it numerous times.

Fourth – There have been reliable first-hand eyewitnesses (throughout recorded history and up until this very day) to the fact that the words of Jesus and that of the Bible are true, reliable, and actionable.

First – There are a multitude of reliable first-hand eyewitnesses to the life, ministry, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, continued ministry and ascension of Jesus.

Second – Jesus proves that the New Testament is true and reliable.

Third – Jesus referred to the Old Testament as true and reliable by referencing it numerous times.

Fourth – There have been reliable first-hand eyewitnesses (throughout recorded history and up until this very day) to the fact that the words of Jesus and that of the Bible are true, reliable, and actionable.

Conclusion – The Bible is true AND reliable.

Ron

by 'first-hand eyewitnesses' who do you mean?So, TeeJay, others would my second answer be correct the revelation given to man, prophecy, etc?Maybe I'm confused? I've wrestled with questions like this in another forum...a similiar question is How do we know when we hear God's voice today?

First – There are a multitude of reliable first-hand eyewitnesses to the life, ministry, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, continued ministry and ascension of Jesus.

Second – Jesus proves that the New Testament is true and reliable.

Third – Jesus referred to the Old Testament as true and reliable by referencing it numerous times.

Fourth – There have been reliable first-hand eyewitnesses (throughout recorded history and up until this very day) to the fact that the words of Jesus and that of the Bible are true, reliable, and actionable.

Conclusion – The Bible is true AND reliable.

Ron

by 'first-hand eyewitnesses' who do you mean?

Peter, John, James the greater, James the lesser, Jude, Andrew, Thomas, (basically ALL the Apostles etc...), Mary, Mary and Mary, Paul, and the more than five thousand that Paul mentioned. I could go on, but I think you get the gist...

[quote]name='Ron' timestamp='1337911814' post='84067']First – There are a multitude of reliable first-hand eyewitnesses to the life, ministry, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, continued ministry and ascension of Jesus.

Second – Jesus proves that the New Testament is true and reliable.

Third – Jesus referred to the Old Testament as true and reliable by referencing it numerous times.

Fourth – There have been reliable first-hand eyewitnesses (throughout recorded history and up until this very day) to the fact that the words of Jesus and that of the Bible are true, reliable, and actionable.

Conclusion – The Bible is true AND reliable.

Ron
[/quote]

Ron,

All of the evidence you have presented above is from the Bible. So you are using the Bible to prove the Bible. This is circular reasoning. But isn't circular reasoning unavoidable? The Greeks had a myth that the earth rested on the back of a turtle. What did that turtle rest on? Another turtle that rested on another turtle and so on. Eventually, you must find a turtle that all the other turtles rest on or we have turtles with no end.

C. S. Lewis, in his book Miracles, argued that our ability to reason must come from reason (reasonless matter can't give you this). We can trace our ability to reason back to our parents. Our parents to their parents, and so on. Eventually, we must find an Ultimate Reason which does not owe its existence to anyone or anything--it exists on its own and has always existed.

A logical argument must rest on an Ultimate Standard, or no truth can be reached. For any belief that a person has (p), we can ask, "How do you know that p is true". The person can appeal to another proposition (q) that he believes supports his conclusion (p). But since he has appealed to another proposition (q), we now must ask, "How do you know q is true." In his defense of q, the person will appeal to yet another proposition (r), which we can again question, leading him to suggest another proposition (s), and so on. Ultimately, any such chain of reasoning must come to an end. It must terminate in an Ultimate Standard--we will call it (t).

We can then argue that we know p is true because it follows from q , which follows from r, and so on, all the way back to our Ultimate Standard (t), All truth then depends on t being true. If our Ultimate Standard (t) is not known to be true (i.e. provable), then we can't actually know anything whatsoever. So we have established the following: (1) Everyone must have an ultimate standard (there is no neutrality), (2) An ultimate standard can't be proved from another standard (since there is no greater standard), and appealing to a lesser standard is fallacious), (3) An ultimate standard can't be merely assumed (otherwise, we couldn't know anything). This leaves us with only one possible answer to the question of how an ultimate standard is proved. An ultimate standard must prove itself. It must be self-attesting. It must provide criteria for what is to be considered true, and by which all claims are judged--including the ultimate standard itself. This is a mighty tall order, but the Bible (God's word) actually measures up.

Notice that God Himself uses a type of circular reasoning when He makes an oath. Humans appeal to a greater authority as confirmation of an oath (Heb. 6:16). But since God is Ultimate, He can only use Himself as the authority. Hebrews 6:13 states, "When God made His promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, He swore by Himself."

[quote] name='rico' timestamp='1337957437' post='84074']
by 'first-hand eyewitnesses' who do you mean?
So, TeeJay, others would my second answer be correct the revelation given to man, prophecy, etc?
Maybe I'm confused? I've wrestled with questions like this in another forum...
a similiar question is How do we know when we hear God's voice today?
[/quote]

rico, You can know it's God talking if it agrees with His word (the Bible). Jesus said, "I am the truth." So if it disagrees with His word, then it is not true, because Jesus can't deny Himself and remain the truth.

While researching I found a chart that I can't find now that had what scripture said on one side and what God said on the other; the bible is an account of many witnesses..., the types of revelation on that website as well, were mentioned.

All of the evidence you have presented above is from the Bible. So you are using the Bible to prove the Bible. This is circular reasoning. But isn't circular reasoning unavoidable? The Greeks had a myth that the earth rested on the back of a turtle. What did that turtle rest on? Another turtle that rested on another turtle and so on. Eventually, you must find a turtle that all the other turtles rest on or we have turtles with no end.

C. S. Lewis, in his book Miracles, argued that our ability to reason must come from reason (reasonless matter can't give you this). We can trace our ability to reason back to our parents. Our parents to their parents, and so on. Eventually, we must find an Ultimate Reason which does not owe its existence to anyone or anything--it exists on its own and has always existed.

A logical argument must rest on an Ultimate Standard, or no truth can be reached. For any belief that a person has (p), we can ask, "How do you know that p is true". The person can appeal to another proposition (q) that he believes supports his conclusion (p). But since he has appealed to another proposition (q), we now must ask, "How do you know q is true." In his defense of q, the person will appeal to yet another proposition (r), which we can again question, leading him to suggest another proposition (s), and so on. Ultimately, any such chain of reasoning must come to an end. It must terminate in an Ultimate Standard--we will call it (t).

We can then argue that we know p is true because it follows from q , which follows from r, and so on, all the way back to our Ultimate Standard (t), All truth then depends on t being true. If our Ultimate Standard (t) is not known to be true (i.e. provable), then we can't actually know anything whatsoever. So we have established the following: (1) Everyone must have an ultimate standard (there is no neutrality), (2) An ultimate standard can't be proved from another standard (since there is no greater standard), and appealing to a lesser standard is fallacious), (3) An ultimate standard can't be merely assumed (otherwise, we couldn't know anything). This leaves us with only one possible answer to the question of how an ultimate standard is proved. An ultimate standard must prove itself. It must be self-attesting. It must provide criteria for what is to be considered true, and by which all claims are judged--including the ultimate standard itself. This is a mighty tall order, but the Bible (God's word) actually measures up.

Notice that God Himself uses a type of circular reasoning when He makes an oath. Humans appeal to a greater authority as confirmation of an oath (Heb. 6:16). But since God is Ultimate, He can only use Himself as the authority. Hebrews 6:13 states, "When God made His promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, He swore by Himself."

How does the Bible prove itself?

TeeJay

That would be incorrect TeeJay... I am not "using the Bible to prove the Bible"...1- The Bible is a collection of books that are a collective that make up the whole.2- Quite a few of these "Books" are actually letters by first hand eyewitnesses that attest to (i.e. affirm) what they witnessesed (physically evidence) 3- I am using the written testimony of firsthand eyewitness to support the facts.Conclusion: It is not circuitus at all. Calling these evidences would be akin to calling eyewittnesses in a court case " circular reasoning". Your logic is flawed.

My logic is not flawed. You are using witnesses recorded in the Bible to prove the Bible is true. Should we believe the book of Mormon or the Koran? Both have their witnesses as well.

I argued above that to reach an Ultimate Standard, circular reasoning is unavoidable. An Ultimate Standard must prove itself. Unless one has an Ultimate Standard, no truth can be reached. An Ultimate Standard must prove itself. The Bible (God's word) is my Ultimate Standard and it proves itself and is the basis for all truth. How can we prove this? I'm holding back a little here to make it interesting.

Hint: We can know something is true if we have to use it to argue against it. For example, I once had an atheist on ToL who argued that the laws of logic were not absolute but conventional. I asked him if the Law of Non-contradiction was absolute. He then gave me an argument where he unwittingly used the Law of Non-contradiction to argue that it was not absolute.

For an athesit to argue that the Bible is not true and is not the word of God, he must use the Bible to argue against it. Rational reasoning involves using the laws of logic. Therefore, a rational worldview must be able to account for the existence of such laws. Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or any laws of reasoning? The laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and absolute. The Christian has a rational reason to believe in the immaterial laws of logic because we are to pattern our minds after God's. The atheist, in his materialistic worldview, can't account for logic or any rational reasoning. Thus, he must use God's laws of logic to argue against God. Again, a great way to show that a presupposition is true is that one would have to assume that it is true to argue against it.

What else must the atheist use--which he can't account for but the Christian can--to argue against God?

Ron,My logic is not flawed. You are using witnesses recorded in the Bible to prove the Bible is true. Should we believe the book of Mormon or the Koran? Both have their witnesses as well.No Teejay, your logic is flawed. Also, I provided a simplistic explanation that proved how your logic is in fact flawed; so unless, of course, you are going to attempt to say that multiple eyewitness testimony in a court case is somehow circular reasoning (if this is what you are attempting to say), then please provide how it is so. If not, then accept that your reasoning is flawed. When you have done either of the above, then (and only then) we can further discuss your attempt at elucidation. Further, if you are going to attempt to equate the Koran, and the book of Mormon to the Bible (specifically the new Testament) in the cases of multiple irrefutable first hand eye witnesses, it is incumbent upon you to provide how this is so as well. Let me further state that I am warning you that misrepresentation and equivocation (amongst other things) are both violations of this forum.

While researching I found a chart that I can't find now that had what scripture said on one side and what God said on the other; the bible is an account of many witnesses..., the types of revelation on that website as well, were mentioned.

The problem with Teejays question Rico, is that it is fallacious at its base. And Teejay is misusing it (it seems) as an attempt to evade my direct refutation of his hypothesis.

First - The Bible doesn’t “Prove itself”. The books and letters in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) are accounts (most of which are first-hand accounts) of man dealing with God. These are “Proofs” of GOD!

Second – God proves He is God within His interactions with man.

Third – Just like You or I prove we are who we say we are within our interactions with others, God proves who He is within His interactions with US. He did this as well, throughout the testimonials in the Bible.

No Teejay, your logic is flawed. Also, I provided a simplistic explanation that proved how your logic is in fact flawed; so unless, of course, you are going to attempt to say that multiple eyewitness testimony in a court case is somehow circular reasoning (if this is what you are attempting to say), then please provide how it is so. If not, then accept that your reasoning is flawed. When you have done either of the above, then (and only then) we can further discuss your attempt at elucidation.[/quote]

Ron, we are not in a court case, listening to live witnesses. Question: How do you know that the testamony of the multiple witnesses is true? [quote]Further, if you are going to attempt to equate the Koran, and the book of Mormon to the Bible (specifically the new Testament) in the cases of multiple irrefutable first hand eye witnesses, it is incumbent upon you to provide how this is so as well.[/quote]

Ron, now you label the testamony of the witnesses as "irrefutable." We are 2,000 years or more removed from these testamonies. What makes them irrefutable? Two plus two is a self-evident truth that is irrefutable--irrefragable even. The only proof you have is recorded incidents in Scripture. How do we know their testamony is true? Because the Bible is true? And if so, then the Mormon can claim the same--because the Book of Mormon says so. [quote]Let me further state that I am warning you that misrepresentation and equivocation (amongst other things) are both violations of this forum.

[/quote]

Ron, at the outset, I said I would play Satan Advocate to make it interesting. Now you are warning me of "misrepresentation." Perhaps we had better end this?